Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at output content (notes, price, links) and does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. For a get tool this is a meaningful omission.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks a sentence structure that conveys a complete thought about what the tool does, sacrificing clarity for brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description needs to explain what 'one entry' means, what 'pulsar' refers to, and how 'id' relates to the result. It only lists three fields, leaving key context missing for a tool with a single required parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one required 'id' parameter with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions the parameter or explains what kind of ID is expected or how it selects the entry. It adds no semantic value for the parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'How pulsar compares — one entry with notes, price, and links' does not clearly state a verb or action. It reads as a subtitle about content rather than an explanation that this tool retrieves a measure by ID. The tool name suggests 'get', but the description fails to establish that.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like measure_search or pulsar_get. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving selection entirely to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.